On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 04:56:58PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 03:38:06PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > +void task_numa_fault(int last_nid, int node, int pages, bool migrated)
> > {
> > struct task_struct *p = current;
> > + int priv = (cpu_to_node(task_cpu(p)) == last_nid);
> >
> > if (!sched_feat_numa(NUMA))
> > return;
> >
> > /* Allocate buffer to track faults on a per-node basis */
> > if (unlikely(!p->numa_faults)) {
> > - int size = sizeof(*p->numa_faults) * nr_node_ids;
> > + int size = sizeof(*p->numa_faults) * 2 * nr_node_ids;
> >
> > /* numa_faults and numa_faults_buffer share the allocation */
> > - p->numa_faults = kzalloc(size * 2, GFP_KERNEL);
> > + p->numa_faults = kzalloc(size * 4, GFP_KERNEL);
> > if (!p->numa_faults)
> > return;
>
> So you need a buffer 2x the size in total; but you're now allocating
> a buffer 4x larger than before.
>
> Isn't doubling size alone sufficient?
/me slaps self
This was a rebase screwup. Thanks.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>